Very brave of him to live in that shack, I'm surprised that he hasn't been assasinated by fierce supporters of the opposition.
Very brave of him to live in that shack, I'm surprised that he hasn't been assasinated by fierce supporters of the opposition.
I think this is great, i believe that Leaders should have to live at least 6months, like the average person they "lead" does, same place to live, same wages etc, it would make them have a more realistic look on things
But, when it comes to the economy, the line between performance measure and actual stimuli becomes rather blurred. The market economy, based on supply and demand, is assessed on its levels of production increase, increased sales, increased wealth and standard of living, a perceptible expansion is viewed as essential by market economists. If an economy is strong, but growth is low, people freak out. People fear stagnation and start to act pre-emptively to reduce personal loss and perhaps make a profit, and this speculative action can be damaging.
Unless an economy is perceived to be growing, it is viewed as not performing properly, therefore I'd argue it is based, at least somewhat, on growth. Especially when the population of the Earth is ever-growing along with the productivity and resource consumption of developing countries.
I get the impression that Uruguay isn't a country where political assassination is much of a concern. And, I'm sure despite his best efforts to leave humbly, the administration likely insists he has protection on site or nearby.
Besides, he's Left-wing. The opposition are presumably Rightist, so, to them, the less spending by the State the better I would imagine! xD
We don't need political will. Investment comes from other sources than taxpayer money. There's also no point right now even thinking about acquiring resources from the space (apart from solar energy of course), we're not technologically there yet.
---------- Post added 2012-11-16 at 05:53 PM ----------
Of course people fear stagnation, they want to improve their standard of living. But if the standard of living stagnated, that wouldn't mean the end of capitalism or life. Sure, it would be worse than not stagnating, but that's about it.
In capitalism resources are allocated to their most productive uses. Thus it's natural that if there is growth in one place and no growth in others, resources would go to where there is growth. That doesn't mean it depends on growth.Unless an economy is perceived to be growing, it is viewed as not performing properly, therefore I'd argue it is based, at least somewhat, on growth. Especially when the population of the Earth is ever-growing along with the productivity and resource consumption of developing countries.
I'm not arguing that a collapse in our current global economic model would mean the inevitable end of Capitalism. Capitalism can exist as long as 2 people are alive, one able to produce something and the other able to barter for it. What I am saying is that the current attitude towards an economy based on global markets and the fact that growth is perceived as one of the best measures of performance is unsustainable. And, unless new resources (fuel and otherwise) are discovered soon, then within the next century or so, things could get very bad (Ie. Massive wars for resources, the collapse of currencies, all that bad stuff).
Capitalism does not rely on growth, sure. But, national economies are perceived to need it and that's not good for the future.
As long as he has Internet access in his little shack, I don't see a problem.
All kidding aside, though, his attitude is something to commend. Leading by example, maybe?
My Gaming Setup | WoW Paladin (retired)
"This is not a dress. This is a sacred robe of the ancient psychedelic monks."
The human being has wanted to improve his or her quality of life since the beginning of time, what you see as a need for perpetual growth is nothing more than this phenomenon. It's not something that is unique to our current society, and even if we at some point encounter obstacles in improving our quality of life, we will attempt to do it regardless. And that's what drives us forward.
I have no idea what sort of "project" you're talking about, but I'm guessing it's completely unrealistic and silly.
Last edited by mmoc43ae88f2b9; 2012-11-16 at 06:19 PM.
Sure, innovation is stimulated by a desire to improve one's quality of life (a motivation which is not exclusive to a market system), but unless we are able to alter people's perception of what makes a healthy economy, doing away with the commonly-held belief that growth is a fundamental, long-term measure of the strength of an economy then we are likely to find ourselves in trouble within the next few generations.
The people who expect there to be growth over the next 10 years will be disappointed if there is none, but that's about it. We'll all of course be poorer than we thought, because much of our wealth is invested in projects we projected would make us richer as the economy grows. But that's it.
Sustainable living and a smart growth economy. Growth for the sake of growth is a waste of our dwindling natural resources. The pieces are all there, but the first world countries need to show leadership and start the implementation of an economy based around the scientific method and the laws of nature.
Or, they would do what they do in China: accept shitloads of bribes and build billion dollar nest eggs on the DL. It's a nice thought, people doing the right thing when no one is looking, but that doesn't seem to be the natural course of action for people who chase and acquire power.
---------- Post added 2012-11-16 at 08:02 PM ----------
Unfortunately, growth for the sake of growth is exactly what drives the American economy. Everyone wants to see 25% more than they saw last year. No matter what. When money is the bottom line, we'll continue to fuck ourselves into an even bigger global crisis and shameful levels of waste.
There's no growth for the sake of growth, growth is the result of people wanting a better life for themselves. It's not some politician that decides what the growth is going to be, you can't manage growth.
The economy is based around the scientific method and the laws of nature, so I'm not sure WTF you're talking about.
What you just actually said, doesn't actually mean anything.
Better life is not a subjective term. Our 20th century experiment with mixed market capitalism which gave way to mixed market globalization has reach its end point. If we were on a larger planet with more resources we could afford to have such inequities between societies, but we don't, and we need to start collaborating as one human race to solve the problems of the 21st and 22nd centuries, and you know what those are.
I read about this guy a few days ago.
It really is quite fascinating and extremely admirable.
I don't fault leaders of the free world such as the President of the US or PM of the UK for living posh lifestyles, though. Their work is extremely difficult and no matter what they do, half of their bosses will be angry with them. You can SEE the stress on them.
Here's a picture of Obama in 2008:
And again only 4 years later:
Think it's just him? Here's Bush Jr. in 2000: (Link because it's big)
Right here
And here he is again just 4 years later:
Right here
Being the President is a fucking stressful job and I think they deserve 6 figures.
But if President Mujica wants to live an austere lifestyle as an example to his people, then by fucking god that makes him the most "put your money where your mouth is" guy who's ever been elected to office.
And I thought Al Franken waiting in line like a regular shmuck for a tour of the White House (as opposed to a VIP tour which is offered to Congressmen) was admirable.
--- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.
Damn this topic went downhill quick.
He's not decrying growth entirely. He's decrying unchecked, rampant wanton desire for MORE. He's decrying GREED.
There is a point at which the desire for more than what you have becomes a call for introspection, not more stuff.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
Growth for the sake of growth exists. For example, getting an Iphone 5 when you had a 4.5 already. It's not much better, you're just getting it for the sake of getting the newest one.
Same for those people obsessed with being in fashion. They get new clothes every few days, not because they lack clothes, but merely for the sake of getting clothes.
There's people buying games, not for the sake of playing them, but for the sake of getting them, and the games sit in their Steam library never installed or even seen what they're about because they were on promotions.
This is growth for the sake of growth. It's useless and worthless.
Exactly.